Voter ID controversy — Impediment or security measure?

If you’ve ever wondered why Democrats are so suspicious of Republican-backed voter ID efforts, a recent incident in Pennsylvania should offer some clarity.

Over the weekend, Mike Turzai, leader of Pennsylvania’s GOP House majority, announced in a meeting of the Republican State Committee that the state’s new voter ID law “is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania.”

No wonder Democrats won’t even entertain a discussion about a voter ID law — because it’s clear to them that these efforts are intended to suppress votes from their party.

A blog posting[2] on the New York Times website, quoted a spokesman for Turzai as saying GOP majority leader’s remarks were an effort to highlight the notion that it was important to fight voter fraud and that would make the situation fair in the upcoming election. The spokesman declined to say whether voter fraud had been a factor in previous presidential contests in Pennsylvania.

The Pennsylvania measure, passed this year, would mandate voters show ID before casting ballots. Democrats have said the measure would make it tougher for their supporters to vote. A Colorado state Senate panel summarily killed a similar measure[3] this spring.

The thing is, voter ID doesn’t have to be an impediment to fair access to the polls, and we said so in an editorial in 2011[4]. But it easily can be. And that’s why Democrats are so wary and critical[5] of stringent voter ID laws passed in the months leading up to the 2012 presidential election.

Requiring an ID before allowing a voter to cast a ballot can be a reasonable and non-discriminatory check. The operative phrase is “can be.” But such a change should not happen right before an election, and it ought to be accompanied by assistance and a host of opportunities for people without a proper ID to get one.

Here is how we described it in that 2011 editorial:

Here’s a for-instance: If states are going to require that voters have state-issued photo IDs, they had better make sure they have enough government offices, hours and staff — particularly in poorer areas where transportation options are limited — to ensure getting an ID is a reasonable task. For those who can’t afford the fee, the ID should be provided free.

States should have ways of voting provisionally that allow people to prove who they are with alternative documents. We also think they should allow voters to use other photo IDs deemed reasonably secure, such as those issued by in-state universities or the military.

These are the sorts of details, we think, that make the difference.

The unfortunate thing is that debate of these sorts of details, such as how to provide access and services, will never happen so long as voter ID is seen — by both sides — as a political tool to ensure their candidates win.